[REVIEW]: GraphPPL.jl: A Julia Package for probabilistic model and inference constraints specification

whedon commented 1 year ago

Submitting author: !--author-handle-->@bvdmitri@matbesancon<!--end-editor-- Reviewers: @theogf, @sethaxen Archive: Pending

Status

Status badge code:

HTML: <a href="https://proceedings.juliacon.org/papers/fcc2b8dbec8e463e7d8f4656ffc19c77"><img src="https://proceedings.juliacon.org/papers/fcc2b8dbec8e463e7d8f4656ffc19c77/status.svg"></a>
Markdown: [![status](https://proceedings.juliacon.org/papers/fcc2b8dbec8e463e7d8f4656ffc19c77/status.svg)](https://proceedings.juliacon.org/papers/fcc2b8dbec8e463e7d8f4656ffc19c77)

Reviewers and authors:

Please avoid lengthy details of difficulties in the review thread. Instead, please create a new issue in the target repository and link to those issues (especially acceptance-blockers) by leaving comments in the review thread below. (For completists: if the target issue tracker is also on GitHub, linking the review thread in the issue or vice versa will create corresponding breadcrumb trails in the link target.)

Reviewer instructions & questions

@theogf & @sethaxen, please carry out your review in this issue by updating the checklist below. If you cannot edit the checklist please:

Make sure you're logged in to your GitHub account
Be sure to accept the invite at this URL: https://github.com/openjournals/joss-reviews/invitations

The reviewer guidelines are available here: https://joss.readthedocs.io/en/latest/reviewer_guidelines.html. Any questions/concerns please let @matbesancon know.

✨ Please start on your review when you are able, and be sure to complete your review in the next six weeks, at the very latest ✨

Review checklist for @theogf

Conflict of interest

[x] As the reviewer I confirm that I have read the JuliaCon conflict of interest policy and that there are no conflicts of interest for me to review this work.

Code of Conduct

[x] I confirm that I read and will adhere to the JuliaCon code of conduct.

General checks

[x] Repository: Is the source code for this software available at the repository url?
[x] License: Does the repository contain a plain-text LICENSE file with the contents of an OSI approved software license?
[ ] Authorship: Has the submitting author (@bvdmitri) made major contributions to the software? Does the full list of paper authors seem appropriate and complete?

Functionality

[ ] Installation: Does installation proceed as outlined in the documentation?
[ ] Functionality: Have the functional claims of the software been confirmed?
[x] Performance: If there are any performance claims of the software, have they been confirmed? (If there are no claims, please check off this item.)

Documentation

[ ] A statement of need: Do the authors clearly state what problems the software is designed to solve and who the target audience is?
[ ] Installation instructions: Is there a clearly-stated list of dependencies? Ideally these should be handled with an automated package management solution.
[x] Example usage: Do the authors include examples of how to use the software (ideally to solve real-world analysis problems).
[ ] Functionality documentation: Is the core functionality of the software documented to a satisfactory level (e.g., API method documentation)?
[ ] Automated tests: Are there automated tests or manual steps described so that the function of the software can be verified?
[ ] Community guidelines: Are there clear guidelines for third parties wishing to 1) Contribute to the software 2) Report issues or problems with the software 3) Seek support

Paper format

[x] Authors: Does the paper.tex file include a list of authors with their affiliations?
[x] A statement of need: Do the authors clearly state what problems the software is designed to solve and who the target audience is?
[x] References: Do all archival references that should have a DOI list one (e.g., papers, datasets, software)?
[x] Page limit: Is the page limit for extended abstracts respected by the submitted document?

Content

[ ] Context: is the scientific context motivating the work correctly presented?
[ ] Methodology: is the approach taken in the work justified, presented with enough details and reference to reproduce it?
[ ] Results: are the results presented and compared to approaches with similar goals?

Review checklist for @sethaxen

Conflict of interest
[ ] As the reviewer I confirm that I have read the JuliaCon conflict of interest policy and that there are no conflicts of interest for me to review this work.

Code of Conduct

[ ] I confirm that I read and will adhere to the JuliaCon code of conduct.

General checks

[ ] Repository: Is the source code for this software available at the repository url?
[ ] License: Does the repository contain a plain-text LICENSE file with the contents of an OSI approved software license?
[ ] Authorship: Has the submitting author (@bvdmitri) made major contributions to the software? Does the full list of paper authors seem appropriate and complete?

Functionality

[ ] Installation: Does installation proceed as outlined in the documentation?
[ ] Functionality: Have the functional claims of the software been confirmed?
[ ] Performance: If there are any performance claims of the software, have they been confirmed? (If there are no claims, please check off this item.)

Documentation

[ ] A statement of need: Do the authors clearly state what problems the software is designed to solve and who the target audience is?
[ ] Installation instructions: Is there a clearly-stated list of dependencies? Ideally these should be handled with an automated package management solution.
[ ] Example usage: Do the authors include examples of how to use the software (ideally to solve real-world analysis problems).
[ ] Functionality documentation: Is the core functionality of the software documented to a satisfactory level (e.g., API method documentation)?
[ ] Automated tests: Are there automated tests or manual steps described so that the function of the software can be verified?
[ ] Community guidelines: Are there clear guidelines for third parties wishing to 1) Contribute to the software 2) Report issues or problems with the software 3) Seek support

Paper format

[ ] Authors: Does the paper.tex file include a list of authors with their affiliations?
[ ] A statement of need: Do the authors clearly state what problems the software is designed to solve and who the target audience is?
[ ] References: Do all archival references that should have a DOI list one (e.g., papers, datasets, software)?
[ ] Page limit: Is the page limit for extended abstracts respected by the submitted document?

Content

[ ] Context: is the scientific context motivating the work correctly presented?
[ ] Methodology: is the approach taken in the work justified, presented with enough details and reference to reproduce it?
[ ] Results: are the results presented and compared to approaches with similar goals?

whedon commented 1 year ago

Hello human, I'm @whedon, a robot that can help you with some common editorial tasks. @theogf, @sethaxen it looks like you're currently assigned to review this paper :tada:.

:warning: JOSS reduced service mode :warning:

Due to the challenges of the COVID-19 pandemic, JOSS is currently operating in a "reduced service mode". You can read more about what that means in our blog post.

:star: Important :star:

If you haven't already, you should seriously consider unsubscribing from GitHub notifications for this (https://github.com/JuliaCon/proceedings-review) repository. As a reviewer, you're probably currently watching this repository which means for GitHub's default behaviour you will receive notifications (emails) for all reviews 😿

To fix this do the following two things:

Set yourself as 'Not watching' https://github.com/JuliaCon/proceedings-review:

watching

You may also like to change your default settings for this watching repositories in your GitHub profile here: https://github.com/settings/notifications

notifications

For a list of things I can do to help you, just type:

@whedon commands

For example, to regenerate the paper pdf after making changes in the paper's md or bib files, type:

@whedon generate pdf

whedon commented 1 year ago

PDF failed to compile for issue #123 with the following error:

 Can't find any papers to compile :-(

whedon commented 1 year ago

Attempting PDF compilation from custom branch paper/julia_proceedings_2. Reticulating splines etc...

whedon commented 1 year ago

PDF failed to compile for issue #123 with the following error:

 Can't find any papers to compile :-(

bvdmitri commented 1 year ago

@whedon generate pdf from branch paper/julia_proceedings_2022

whedon commented 1 year ago

Attempting PDF compilation from custom branch paper/julia_proceedings_2022. Reticulating splines etc...

whedon commented 1 year ago

PDF failed to compile for issue #123 with the following error:

 Can't find any papers to compile :-(

matbesancon commented 1 year ago

@whedon generate pdf from branch paper/julia_proceedings_2022

whedon commented 1 year ago

Attempting PDF compilation from custom branch paper/julia_proceedings_2022. Reticulating splines etc...

whedon commented 1 year ago

:point_right::page_facing_up: Download article proof :page_facing_up: View article proof on GitHub :page_facing_up: :point_left:

whedon commented 1 year ago

:wave: @theogf, please update us on how your review is going (this is an automated reminder).

whedon commented 1 year ago

:wave: @sethaxen, please update us on how your review is going (this is an automated reminder).

theogf commented 1 year ago

I have started reviewing the abstract and the package and before I go further, there are some major issues for acceptance:

In the docs, the examples do not work. There is no @model in GraphPPL.jl.
If it is somewhere else it should be mentioned in the examples (and the docs statements should be corrected)
There is close to zero test on the main functionality of the package

See generally the missing points in Functionality and Documentation in my checklist.

I have additional comments regarding the text but they can wait.

bvdmitri commented 1 year ago

Hey @theogf , your concerns are valid. That happened because we splitted up (it was quite some time since the initial submission) our repository and now the @model macro lives in the RxInfer repository. So the repository is currently not in a very good shape. The GraphPPL is being refactored by a PhD student of ours to allow more features, tests and be self isolated from the RxInfer. This work, however, will take some time :/

matbesancon commented 1 year ago

@bvdmitri thanks for the response. Given the context, could it be worth submitting the proceeding later, when the package is more mature and stabilized in its new version?

bvdmitri commented 1 year ago

@matbesancon At the current stage I would agree with you, we better shall resubmit the new version. We expect it to be available in summer.

matbesancon commented 1 year ago

I will close this for now with that tag, thanks everyone

lucaferranti commented 2 months ago

@editorialbot reject

editorialbot commented 2 months ago

Paper rejected.

JuliaCon / proceedings-review